The Private Interpretation Ploy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Scottgun
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Reformed1 said:
Okay, but the are still interpreting scripture on their own, are they not and if they are, aren’t they engaging in private interpretation?
Click to expand...
Yes they are. Catholics engage in private interpretations within the limits set up by Christ’s authoritative Church.

The Church permits a degree of speculation, but it does not allow the Bible to mean anything anyone wants it to mean.
 
Reformed1 said:
Okay, but the are still interpreting scripture on their own, are they not and if they are, aren’t they engaging in private interpretation?
Click to expand...
A Catholic may do so as long as such an interpretation does not contradict Church teaching.
 
Reformed1 said:
Interesting, in debates I have heard Sungenis, Pacwa, and Madrid all admit that the church has only interpreted a few verses. None of them mentioned the catechsim.
Click to expand...
Our realtionship with God is not dependent on individual parsing of individual verses of Scipture. The Church Christ founded has answred the questions for us.
Regardless, what do you do where there is wiggle room in a church teaching? For example, your church has not ruled one way or the other on the whether the creation story is using allegory, or whether the creation story is describing six, literal 24 hour days.
Click to expand...
The Church hasnt ruled because it doesnt matter in the least. the how is totally irelevant , the WHO is all that matters. only those who have shackeld themsleved with Sola scripture are concerend about such things.
If you or another Catholic takes one side or the other, they aren’t putting themselves in opposition to any church teaching. So, what are they relying on in this case?
Click to expand...
Personal opinion which has no more impact than their pesonal opnion on who will win next years world series.
 
sandusky said:
More importantly, how have they arrived at the conclusion that RCC is THE true church?

It is by fallible private interpretation that they believe in the infallibility of the RCC.

That realization is the OP’s lament.
Click to expand...
Do you think that be repeating this assertion over and over that it will become true?

It is not by private interpretation - that I come to all on my own sitting with a bible open in front of me.

The Church publicly proclaims its infallibility. There is nothing private about it.
**891 **“The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

Nice try, though.
 
Reformed1 said:
I venture you won’t get an answer that doesn’t either attack sola scriptura or bring up the canon.
Click to expand...
Neither.

**891 **“The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

You seem like a bright, if quarrelsome fellow, how do you interpret the above?

Pretty black and white, isn’t it? :yup:
 
Randy_Carson said:
Do you think that be repeating this assertion over and over that it will become true?

It is not by private interpretation - that I come to all on my own sitting with a bible open in front of me.

The Church publicly proclaims its infallibility. There is nothing private about it.
**891 **“The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

Nice try, though.
Click to expand...
How do we know how to interpret “faith” and “morals”? And, if the definitions of faith and morals are given by the Roman Church, how do we know the Roman Church got it right?

The only way we could be certain is if the definition of faith and morals pertained to faith and morals, but how can we be sure that it does without a definition that is protected from error?
 
sandusky said:
Yes, Scylla, they do. 🙂
Click to expand...
This is an out of context quote, which ignores that truth actually matters.
An appeal to rationalism.
I am not going to discuss the private interpretation angle as there is absolutely no comparison between Catholicism and private interpretation. All it is, is a an appeal to personal ability and makes truth secondary, and that is evil.
There is God’s truth which God wants us to know and our own personal sinful interpretation.

Does truth matter for salvation? Discussing interpretation is a waste as non-catholics justify blasphemy if they accept private interpretation.
So the real question is, does truth matter for salvation?

In Christ
Scylla
 
noma said:
How do we know how to interpret “faith” and “morals”? And, if the definitions of faith and morals are given by the Roman Church, how do we know the Roman Church got it right?
?
Click to expand...
Becuase Christ would not allow HIS Church to teach error.
 
estesbob said:
Becuase Christ would not allow HIS Church to teach error.
Click to expand...
But only as it pertains to faith and morals. After all, the Church could teach scientific error (etc.). If you don’t think it can, how do you defend your interpretation of “faith and morals” over mine?

I may interpret “faith and morals” to apply only to statements of the Magisterium that can find direct and explicit support in the Scriptures as I interpret them. Who is to say that this interpretation is wrong? And how would we know what the Magisterium is even saying unless we interpret them ourselves?
 
Reformed1 said:
I doubt you are a loss at to what I mean.

Do you agree or disagree that your church has only “officially” or “infallibly” interpreted a few scriptures?
Click to expand...
Balderdash.

Ever looked in the back of the Catechism? The Index of Citations of scripture in the Catechism is 32 pages of small print in double columns. Each scripture reference is applied in the context of explaining a teaching of the Church - the majority of which you would agree with, I might add, since we share so much of our faith in common.
 
noma said:
But only as it pertains to faith and morals. After all, the Church could teach scientific error (etc.). If you don’t think it can, how do you defend your interpretation of “faith and morals” over mine?

I may interpret “faith and morals” to apply only to statements of the Magisterium that can find direct and explicit support in the Scriptures as I interpret them. Who is to say that this interpretation is wrong? And how would we know what the Magisterium is even saying unless we interpret them ourselves?
Click to expand...
I dont have a personal interperation of faith and morals. i depend on the Church Christ founded.
 
Reformed1 said:
Okay, but when engaging in debate about various topice such as predestination, creation, etc. what do Catholics do when there is no offical church teaching?

Do they not engage in private interpretation?
Click to expand...
There is an enormous difference between speculation about creation and the continued argumentation over infant baptism and justification that continues between Protestant faith communities.

Not everything in theology is nailed down yet. This is especially true for those who must reinvent the wheel.
 
noma said:
I may interpret “faith and morals” to apply only to statements of the Magisterium that can find direct and explicit support in the Scriptures as I interpret them. Who is to say that this interpretation is wrong? And how would we know what the Magisterium is even saying unless we interpret them ourselves?
Click to expand...
The Church decides. It is kinda like claiming you accept 2+2=4 based on private interpretation. You accept it because it is true not because you decided it is true. It is true whether you accept it or not.
 
fix said:
The Church decides. It is kinda like claiming you accept 2+2=4 based on private interpretation. You accept it because it is true not because you decided it is true. It is true whether you accept it or not.
Click to expand...
That’s not what I’m arguing. I accept that 2+2=4 based on how I interpret the symbols. There is no infallible authority telling me that 2+2=4. There is only my interpretation of the symbols, and my application of that interpretation. Insofar as it agrees with the interpretation of most people around me, I can use it as they do.
 
noma said:
How do we know how to interpret “faith” and “morals”? And, if the definitions of faith and morals are given by the Roman Church, how do we know the Roman Church got it right?

The only way we could be certain is if the definition of faith and morals pertained to faith and morals, but how can we be sure that it does without a definition that is protected from error?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you have forgotten that Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into ALL truth.

Did that promise have an expiration date? I seem to recall something about “I am with you ALWAYS”…
 
Randy_Carson said:
Perhaps you have forgotten that Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into ALL truth.

Did that promise have an expiration date? I seem to recall something about “I am with you ALWAYS”…
Click to expand...
But how are we supposed to understand these words? Who interprets for us? And how are we to understand their words?

Ultimately, it seems as though must all come down to how we understand what we see and hear. For if anyone would try to tell us otherwise, how would we understand them except by interpreting by ourselves what they are saying?
 
noma said:
That’s not what I’m arguing. I accept that 2+2=4 based on how I interpret the symbols. There is no infallible authority telling me that 2+2=4. There is only my interpretation of the symbols, and my application of that interpretation. Insofar as it agrees with the interpretation of most people around me, I can use it as they do.
Click to expand...
If I am understanding your argument it would seem to be almost an existential neurosis? I mean you do accept there is an objective reality? If you see a woman in a red dress is she really in a red dress or do you simply conclude it is red because that is your opinion?

Your interpretation of data while subjective to you can be verified as objective, right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top